Maybe I am missing the point, but if it was wrong to take a photo of your own daughter on the grounds that it may be published on a web site, surly it 100 times worse for the BBC to publish it on their web site where thousands of people can see it.

I can understand the need to protect young people, however as these were her own parents, and there was no way the photo could be use to abuse the child, rather that the child (and her parents) has a happy memory (sorry is that wrong!), where is the harm.

If that is the case, I look forward to thousands of cases (Solicitors rubbing hands together (like Vultures)) from sites like Twitter and Facebook.

Terry

It is clear that he was spoken to for taken a photograph. The subject of the photograph was not the issue.

This and many other shopping centres have clearly stated no photography policies.

Really a non story.

'If you are in a public place it's always better to ask permission.'

Who can you ask permission from to take photos in a public place? Surely you mean in a private place to which the public have access?

Quite rightly our local Leisure Centre requires one to have written permission to photgraph (eg my grand daughter getting some gold medals) as there have been cases of perverts using mobile phone cameras in the mixed changing rooms.

fourm member - I respect your opinion, but I don't understand it.What am I doing wrong here? Common sense must prevail here. While I was in London last week, I took many photographs (outside) of all the tourist attractions without asking anybody for any permission, even the armed policeman at the locked gates at Downing Street. Thousands of people were taking photos.

At the Dominion theatre it would have been illegal to take any photos of the Queen Musical. So I didn't.